LXX - order of the books, discussion of what the Septuagint is
schmuel at escape.com
Mon Sep 9 03:34:56 EDT 2002
> > I did not see a reply to this question. I'm sure it is common knowledge,
> > but I do not own an LXX. What order is it in? Does it end in
> Zechariah? Malichi?
>I think that one must distinguish between the original LXX and later
>copies. Originally the books of the LXX were translated into Greek before
>there were any "books" with covers and pages. The orginal LXX was a group
>of scrolls. The question of the "order" of the LXX, in that case, may
>have been meaningless except for books such as the twelve minor prophets
>that all went on one scroll.
I assume you are saying this because the Hebrew manuscripts of the time
were generally in scrolls as you are describing..
My understanding is that no one has ever recovered such a Greek scroll, or even
a description of such a Greek scroll before the time of Messiah, so your
description is a conjecture, based upon ..
1) the Aristeas letter, and the much later writing of Philo, the ambiguous
introduction to Ben Sirach, and such.... which put together indicate
there were some sorts of Greek translations at various times, (although
with the emphasis on the Pentateuch)
2) our knowledge of how Hebrew scrolls were written, and applying that
3) a small section of Greek Deuteronomy recovered from within 100 years
of 0 year,
which can't help us with book order...
Let's try to be clear what is based on actual evidentiary discovery,
and what is conjecture .....
>The later copies I know have some variations on which books of the
>Apocrypha are included. Manuscripts may also vary on Hebrew Bible books.
This seems to be a description of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus,
which are *called* the LXX, even though they are much later dubious Christian
manuscripts, circa 350 AD, about 600 years after the supposed LXX authorship,
My understanding is that Sinaticus has an internal note that it descends
5th column of Origen's Hexapla, AND there is no scholarship lineage
afaik, with earlier writings that may be considered LXX influenced (e.g.
AND there are no earlier extant Greek manuscript Tanach texts to compare
.. keep in mind that these two manuscripts also have MAJOR differences
from the Masoretic Text ..
I believe it is important for any questioner like Bill to understand that
these two manuscripts
are often principally what is actually called the LXX ... even though they
date 600 years
later, and meanwhile Messiah appeared, and the Messianic Testament was
written, and lots
happened, (including a Gentile interest in translating the Tanach) in the
And that LXX scholarship augments these two principle manuscripts with
such things as Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew writings back-translated to
Greek, a rather arcane and dubious way to "reconstruct" a supposed LXX text...
leading of course to lots of work for scholars, and no clear agreement on
supposed LXX is
(btw the Orthodox.. largely Greek, I think... have a new translation in
it seems that Sinaticus and Vaticanus are the "base")
>As for the order of the books, here is one list based on Swete which ends
>with Daniel (with apocryphal additions): http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/
Swete intersperses the Tanach (OT) Apocrypha, seemingly because that is
what Sinaticus and Vaticanus do, although with different books and orders,
as those two manuscripts seemed to consider the apocrypha as Scripture ..
(by this time we have "book order", in one large manuscript)
This is despite the fact that one can make an extremely strong case that
the Hebrew Bible canon was closed quite early, using the DSS and Josephus..
augmented by the Talmud, and that the true Christian understanding does not
include the apocrypha (e.g. they are never referenced as Scripture in the
Messianic Testament, and the Abel to Zechariah reference goes in synch with
the Masoretic Text book order, and the apocrypha books are generally not in
the canons of the day ) ...
Sinaticus and Vaticanus really should be the bete noire of scholarship,
tainting on three levels..
1) becoming more important than 100's of Messianic Testament
to certain non-scriptural textcrit paradigms
2) allowing for a "apocrypha is Scripture" argument, once they are
3) casting doubt on the Masoretic Text, as it offers a very different,
often clearly corrupt,
Unfortunately, instead they have instead become the "little darlings"
Anyone who wants to research the issue more, I suggest look up the actual
condition (not just textual..scribal) of Sinaticus ... starting with Dean
John Burgon's analysis,
and then seeing if anyone has offered a differing view than Burgon of the
state of the text
(e.g. over 10 hands "redacting/correcting" each others errors !)
If you accept Burgon's analysis, and have any concept of Scribal
preservation or integrity,
one has to say "why is this manuscript used for **anything**" ?
One more point on the LXX --
Floyd Nolan Jones has an excellent online book on the LXX ..
The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis by Floyd Nolan Jones
Ready to receive any corrections on the above, and perhaps a bit of flak :-)
schmuel at escape.com
Messianic_Apologetic-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
More information about the b-hebrew